Brand new TV spontaneous cracked screen

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

mckenzie126 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sandtree said:

The law is slightly odd in that before 30 days and after 6 months its up to the customer to show that the fault existed at time of purchase (or fundamentally existed in most cases) whereas between those two dates the assumption is that it existed and its the retailers job to prove it didnt.

As its within 30 days they can ask for proof which is normally in the form of an engineers report the cost of which can be added to the claim. In theory things can be under high tension and just spontaneously break of their own accord (happened to a meeting room glass wall that used to be nearish to my desk before it shattered whilst empty) but never hear it happening to an LCD TV. Assume there is no one else in the property who may not be admitting to their accident?

If the consumer isn't seeking to exercise their short term right to reject then it's taken the goods did not conform any time within the first 6 months and the 30 days doesn't apply.

It's up to Currys to demonstrate the goods did conform unless the purchaser stated they was exercising their short term right to reject (possibly indicated by requesting a refund). 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

(4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

Thanks for this. So is the consensus here that it is up to Curry's to sort this out their end ? I.e its up to Curry's to demonstrate the goods did (or didn't?!) conform. How do they even do that ? Sorry am a little confused with these answers.

If you take something back because it's faulty, damaged, etc you can request a refund within 30 days but the shop can ask you to prove there is a problem.

Otherwise, ignoring the 30 day thing completely, if you take the goods back anytime within 6 months and ask for a repair or replacement then it's taken the goods were faulty, damaged, etc unless the shop shows otherwise (a random employee stating you did it doesn't count for much). 

If your friend was to Google CEO email and search that site for Currys and send an email briefly stating the problem and that you'd like a repair or replacement hopefully you'll get a better response. 

Should they refuse there is then the final right to reject for a refund.

If Currys took the TV, inspected it professionally and stated your friend caused the damage your friend would need to either accept this or get a different report stating otherwise and which report was correct would ultimately be decided on the balance of probability. 

A damaged TV is a very tricky one and (with no offence to your friend) it may well be the case it was damaged by the user but this should be for Currys to show. 

Sandtree

ontheroad1970 said:

I buy TVs from John Lewis now.  Last one I bought had a free 5 year warranty, TV went fault at 4 years 5 months, paid £100 more to upgrade to a 75 inch and got a new 5 year warranty.  Much better service.

Whereas I had to take JL to court to deal with my fridge freezer issue but they settled in full as soon as the claim form was received... Currys just blatantly deny your statutory rights, JL waste your time asking you to quote legislation, then state there are carve outs that mean it doesnt apply to your case but refuse to identify where said carve outs are until their law firm just pays the claim (inc court fees and statutory interest)

ontheroad1970

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

mckenzie126 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sandtree said:

The law is slightly odd in that before 30 days and after 6 months its up to the customer to show that the fault existed at time of purchase (or fundamentally existed in most cases) whereas between those two dates the assumption is that it existed and its the retailers job to prove it didnt.

As its within 30 days they can ask for proof which is normally in the form of an engineers report the cost of which can be added to the claim. In theory things can be under high tension and just spontaneously break of their own accord (happened to a meeting room glass wall that used to be nearish to my desk before it shattered whilst empty) but never hear it happening to an LCD TV. Assume there is no one else in the property who may not be admitting to their accident?

If the consumer isn't seeking to exercise their short term right to reject then it's taken the goods did not conform any time within the first 6 months and the 30 days doesn't apply.

It's up to Currys to demonstrate the goods did conform unless the purchaser stated they was exercising their short term right to reject (possibly indicated by requesting a refund). 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

(4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

Thanks for this. So is the consensus here that it is up to Curry's to sort this out their end ? I.e its up to Curry's to demonstrate the goods did (or didn't?!) conform. How do they even do that ? Sorry am a little confused with these answers.

If you take something back because it's faulty, damaged, etc you can request a refund within 30 days but the shop can ask you to prove there is a problem.

Otherwise, ignoring the 30 day thing completely, if you take the goods back anytime within 6 months and ask for a repair or replacement then it's taken the goods were faulty, damaged, etc unless the shop shows otherwise (a random employee stating you did it doesn't count for much). 

If your friend was to Google CEO email and search that site for Currys and send an email briefly stating the problem and that you'd like a repair or replacement hopefully you'll get a better response. 

Should they refuse there is then the final right to reject for a refund.

If Currys took the TV, inspected it professionally and stated your friend caused the damage your friend would need to either accept this or get a different report stating otherwise and which report was correct would ultimately be decided on the balance of probability. 

A damaged TV is a very tricky one and (with no offence to your friend) it may well be the case it was damaged by the user but this should be for Currys to show. 

If it is damaged after the customer has taken possession, then there will be no liability by the retailer.  Damage is different to faulty.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ontheroad1970 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

mckenzie126 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Sandtree said:

The law is slightly odd in that before 30 days and after 6 months its up to the customer to show that the fault existed at time of purchase (or fundamentally existed in most cases) whereas between those two dates the assumption is that it existed and its the retailers job to prove it didnt.

As its within 30 days they can ask for proof which is normally in the form of an engineers report the cost of which can be added to the claim. In theory things can be under high tension and just spontaneously break of their own accord (happened to a meeting room glass wall that used to be nearish to my desk before it shattered whilst empty) but never hear it happening to an LCD TV. Assume there is no one else in the property who may not be admitting to their accident?

If the consumer isn't seeking to exercise their short term right to reject then it's taken the goods did not conform any time within the first 6 months and the 30 days doesn't apply.

It's up to Currys to demonstrate the goods did conform unless the purchaser stated they was exercising their short term right to reject (possibly indicated by requesting a refund). 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19/enacted

(3)If the goods do not conform to the contract because of a breach of any of the terms described in sections 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, or if they do not conform to the contract under section 16, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22);

(b)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(c)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

(4)If the goods do not conform to the contract under section 15 or because of a breach of requirements that are stated in the contract, the consumer’s rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are—

(a)the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and

(b)the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

Thanks for this. So is the consensus here that it is up to Curry's to sort this out their end ? I.e its up to Curry's to demonstrate the goods did (or didn't?!) conform. How do they even do that ? Sorry am a little confused with these answers.

If you take something back because it's faulty, damaged, etc you can request a refund within 30 days but the shop can ask you to prove there is a problem.

Otherwise, ignoring the 30 day thing completely, if you take the goods back anytime within 6 months and ask for a repair or replacement then it's taken the goods were faulty, damaged, etc unless the shop shows otherwise (a random employee stating you did it doesn't count for much). 

If your friend was to Google CEO email and search that site for Currys and send an email briefly stating the problem and that you'd like a repair or replacement hopefully you'll get a better response. 

Should they refuse there is then the final right to reject for a refund.

If Currys took the TV, inspected it professionally and stated your friend caused the damage your friend would need to either accept this or get a different report stating otherwise and which report was correct would ultimately be decided on the balance of probability. 

A damaged TV is a very tricky one and (with no offence to your friend) it may well be the case it was damaged by the user but this should be for Currys to show. 

If it is damaged after the customer has taken possession, then there will be no liability by the retailer.  Damage is different to faulty.

Post was in general terms for understanding, from a correct point of view we are discussing goods which do not conform to the contract. 

The TV is damaged, the question is whether that happened due to user interaction or a manufacturing defect. 

If the wheels fall of my bicycle I would say colloquially that the bicycle was damaged, if this happened due to poor construction or faulty parts the retailer would have an obligation to provide a remedy as the goods did not conform to the contract in terms of durability.

ontheroad1970

I would suggest never ever to use the word 'damaged' in relation to any discussion you may have with retailers like Currys.  I would only use the word fault.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

ontheroad1970 said:

I would suggest never ever to use the word 'damaged' in relation to any discussion you may have with retailers like Currys.  I would only use the word fault.  

I would suggest using the language of the legislation, you might sound like a bit of a pompous twit but equally you’ll hopefully have less encounters where you get fobbed off by company policy or told to claim on a warranty, particularly if you’ve already encountered this and are now raising your case higher up the chain.